Advanced age and absence of specific weapon-injury allegations justified grant of bail.

The applicant, Rohit Patel, aged about 75 years, was arrested on 17 July 2026 in connection with Crime No. 386/2026 registered at Police Station Basna, District Mahasamund, for offences under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 296, 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that, on 16 July 2026, the applicant and his co-accused sons, Devanand Patel and Devendra Patel, along with Aman Patel, abused and assaulted complainant Mulchand Gautam and subsequently attacked Prakash Gautam, Hetram Gautam and Karan Gautam.

The specific allegation of using tangias and inflicting injuries on the injured persons was attributed to Devanand and Devendra Patel.

The applicant claimed false implication, advanced age, absence of any specific allegation of weapon assault, lack of life-threatening injuries, absence of criminal antecedents, and parity with co-accused Aman Patel, who had received anticipatory bail.

The State and complainant opposed bail on the ground of the seriousness of the allegations and the applicant’s participation in the assault.

Whether the applicant, allegedly involved in a group assault but not specifically attributed any weapon injury, should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Whether the applicant’s advanced age, period of custody, distinguishable role, and the bail granted to a co-accused outweighed the seriousness of the allegations for the purpose of granting bail.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail to a person accused of an offence and in custody.

The alleged offences were considered under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 296, 351(3) and 3(5) of the BNS.

The governing bail principles applied were the assessment of the nature and seriousness of the allegations, the material collected during investigation, the accused’s specific role, age, period of custody, criminal antecedents, and the possibility of distinguishing the applicant’s role from that of co-accused persons.

The Court also considered parity with co-accused Aman Patel, who had been granted anticipatory bail.

The Court acknowledged that the applicant was alleged to have participated in the assault along with the co-accused, but found his role materially distinguishable because the specific allegation of inflicting injuries with a tangia or axe was directed against Devanand and Devendra Patel, not against him.

The Court gave significant weight to the applicant’s advanced age of approximately 75 years and his custody since 17 July 2026.

Although the State and complainant emphasized the seriousness of the incident and injuries to multiple persons, those objections did not outweigh the mitigating circumstances, particularly the absence of a specific allegation that the applicant caused weapon injuries.

The Court also noted that co-accused Aman Patel had already received anticipatory bail, while clarifying that it was not expressing any final opinion on the merits.

Rohit Patel was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court.

The bail was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek adjournments when witnesses are present, to remain present before the trial court as directed, to comply with proceedings concerning any misuse of bail or non-appearance, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 BNSS.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be supplied to the trial court for compliance.